shadow9d9

They are evidence simply that there are risks to bringing a new title to market. The remakes are less risky because the stories and general style of play have proven successful. Issuing a remake a couple of years after the original release isn't going to attract new customers (they would have already bought the game), but after a decade, there's a good chance that new customers of the proven formula can be found if the game engine is updated and works on modern machines.

 

SW mixes these remakes with new titles. It keeps revenue flowing; it allows for successes like Avadon while hedging risk. It brings in new customers who would not otherwise experience the Avernum series.

Remakes are less risky because they are cheaper and quicker. I don't think there is any arguing that.

I am not necessarily talking new franchises here. I'd rather Avadon 3-51 if so be it rather than remaking old material. I don't see any inherent risk in expanding the most successful franchise that he has made so far. Counter to this, you suggest that remaking old games might bring in more new people, than say, something new like Avadon 3. Do you see more risk in Avadon 3 than remaking old games?

"SW mixes these remakes with new titles. It keeps revenue flowing; it allows for successes like Avadon while hedging risk. It brings in new customers who would not otherwise experience the Avernum series." You say this as if it has any relevance to what is being discussed... The only relevance is in talking new franchises. Maybe this is where the gap is. I do not ask for a new franchise necessarily. Plus, since NEW Avadons also keep "revenue flowing."

Oh, for crying out loud. I was using "completely different" as an expression to mean, idiomatically, "quite substantially different" -- not "different in every possible way" -- which is consistent with how it is normally used in English! If you look at the original context, I think it's pretty clear what my point was: that there isn't really much debate about the substantial difference between the games, when it comes to mechanics.

 

If you're going to nitpick that, then you certainly can't abandon the "pretty" that I stuck in front of "objectively" as you have done. I don't pretend there's no subjective judgment in this, but this is really just a question of how much is the same and how much isn't -- that's mostly a numbers game.

What? So, "pretty objectively" means in your opinion... and that was exactly the original context. You tried to frame it so that it appeared less like an opinion and instead, "objectively," meaning it is universally accepted. I'm afraid that this is not and never was true. Even someone trying to defend your statement, above, said as much.

"there isn't really much debate about the substantial difference..." Again, this is where you again try to state one of your opinions as if it were universal truth. There is plenty to debate. You just are interested in only stating your opinion as fact so that maybe... I don't know. Do you think that you auto win arguments if you frame your opinions as facts? That maybe other people will just assume that this is a universal truth? Do you realize that in your response to being called out in this mistake, you went ahead and did the exact same thing again?

It isn't nitpicking at all. You made a bogus claim to try to elevate your argument. In this case, not only have you done it again, but you are trying to push another narrative.. one where anyone that dissents from your opinion is nitpicking instead of having a possible valid counter-argument. You are trying to preemptively discount other arguments.

It wasn't "pretty" "objective." It either is objective or not. You can't be half objective. Your opinion is full subjective. Your opinion cannot be changed into something partially objective just because you feel that you have the one true opinion.

So, do you just want a laundry list of all the game mechanics that are different?

That is one method. However, what might be considered a huge difference to you might not be considered that big to others. You are trying to throw the kitchen sink and hope something sticks.

Also, don't state something vaguely such as "mechanics are different." This has no meaning.

Things like " The types of items available are different"... How does this support the claim that "game mechanics are completely different."?

All of Spiderwebgames that I have played, from Avernum 1-6 to Geneforge 1-5, to Avadon 1-2, and I thiiink I played Nethergate... share basic mechanics. Turn based on a grid. A handful of stats and a handful of skills to choose from. Sword, thief, summoner, healer, and wizard classes. One game has main character with pets. The others have 3-4 members in a group. The same basic mechanics are shared. A few stat changes/names here and there or some different items do not in any way make the games "completely different GAMEPLAY mechanics." The Witcher has different gameplay mechanics than Avernum. Dragon Age Origins has different gameplay mechanics from Jade Empire. These remakes change a handful of minor things, but really, the core is similar. Still turn based, small party, doing the same kind of quests. I do not go to a new SWS game expecting innovation. Avadon, while different than the others, is in maaaany ways the exact same thing packaged slightly different.

"There isn't a subjective judgment involved, they simply are different."

Different, in some ways. "Completely different"? Not even close.

Your point was to make your opinions the end all and that everything else should be dismissed before they are even entered. When you state things as "objective" when they are not, then you weaken your argument.

Aside from any squabbles about wording

When words express your entire meaning... and your entire meaning expresses something that is not what you claim it to be... yes, it becomes a problem.

I am around 28 now. Much less bouncing back and forth between hubs. More areas per region in a row. Better story with much better flow. More quests and better flow to them. Still don't like the "return later for possibly more quests" part and I ESPECIALLY do not like that these are kept in your quest journal, which makes figuring out what quests you are on a nightmare.

Actually, this is the very first time you actually made a request for proof of such an assertion. As evidence, I present Blades of Exile/Avernum. Not every new title is a blazing success like Avadon. When I say "may" bring in more new customers, it is relative to the risk associated with bringing a new title to market.

Well, I did ask, "you mean, by the people that already bought it?" In other words, why would a game that is previously well liked, by a very small community, have any effect on a remake's success? What spiderwebsoftware game has this community NOT liked prior to Avadon?

Can you explain what makes Blades of Exile/Avernum evidence? And evidence of what?

I still don't understand how, despite Avadon doing better than any other SWS game, that you'd make the claim that the opposite "may" have more success.

Very well, then. What is *your* assertion? I believe that Jeff Vogel is a reasonably rational business owner. He wouldn't be developing and marketing remakes if they didn't sell. I suppose it's possible that only current owners of the original versions are buying the remakes, but I find that very unlikely. That's why I want some actual evidence.

I don't have an assertion to make. I simply pointed out that what was posted as "objective" was absolutely incorrect and was simply an opinion that is trying to be elevated into fact by declaring it objective. Why should I have to make an assertion to disprove someone else's assertion?

My original post was saying that I have no interest in playing remakes. People countered by saying that their gameplay is "completely different" and that this is apparently objective fact. I responded by saying that that is in no way fact. It is pure opinion. Then, I requested what made someone think that they are in any way "completely different" and so far no one has offered any reasoning.

He wouldn't be developing and marketing remakes if they didn't sell. I suppose it's possible that only current owners of the original versions are buying the remakes, but I find that very unlikely. That's why I want some actual evidence.

Someone else claimed that it "may" bring in more new players than newer franchises/games. I said that Avadon shows that this is not necessarily the case, considering it is new and sold more than everything else combined. Why would I provide evidence for something very different, that I never talked about?

My impression was that Darth Ernie was responding to people who were criticizing Jeff for doing remakes. At a basic level, the point is the same as I made a bit ago: if you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

It appears to me that you've made a snide comment that serves no purpose.

It wasn't snide. It pointed out the truth. He posted his personal opinion masquerading as "objective" fact.

 

The game mechanics are at least substantially different among Exile, Avernum, and A:EftP. Wholly unrelated? No. Completely different? No.

Thanks for proving my point. That was EXACTLY what he had asserted. Let me quote him- "also that the game mechanics are completely different. "

Substantially different? Yes.

Can you explain how you think they are substantially different please?

So the people who care about game mechanics — of whom Slarty has made a reputation for himself as being one — will experience the remakes as fairly different games.

"Fairly different" is an opinion. Stating opinion is fine. The post that I responded to(that you are in turn responding to a response of) made the claim that "objectively" the gameplay is "completely different." This is the bogus claim that I responded to. It is in no way "objectively" stated. It is pure opinion...and one that I asked to be clarified.

That was the central point that Slarty was making, and you can snipe at his wording, but is his point wrong? I don't think so.

That is not the claim that he made whatsoever. You are trying to completely change his argument and change the goalposts. He said that the gameplay is "completely" different and that that was NOT his opinion, but objective FACT, which is as far from the truth as possible. You even confirmed right here in this post that it is NOT "completely" different nor objective in any way.

 

Er, no.

 

Jeff knows he has a good thing going with the writing and style of Exile/Avernum/A:EftP. How does he know? Because people praised the game when it first came out, and they praised it again when it was remade. It's well-liked by people who've played it, but that doesn't mean he's trying to resell it to them, necessarily — it means he knows it's good, so he's trying to sell it to people who weren't even born when Exile came out, or to people who never heard about it last time. That's the point of mentioning that it's well-liked.

I am not sure of the relevance or what point that is trying to be made here.

 

As for the last sentence, I wonder what metric you're using for that. Avadon hit Steam at exactly the right time, so my suspicion is that it just happened to be a good game in the right place at the right time, but I wouldn't be surprised if A:EftP sold extremely well (and "brought attention," whatever that means) nonetheless.

 

(Also, you seem somewhat fact-impaired. If Avadon was so much better for Spidweb, why wasn't Geneforge also? None of the GFs have been remade.)

Yes, that is true. It was the first ios game to come out and a more casual design as well. My point was that it was opposite of what was suggested by the post "A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game. "

As for your last statement, it is a jumbled mess of ideas clutching for some kind of gotcha. If Avadon was good for Spiderweb, why wasn't Geneforge also? I know you think you are latching onto gold here... It could be for lots of reasons. Genre, setting, mechanics, theme, non linearity, etc etc etc. The original statement was "A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game. " l responded by requesting for proof of such an assertion. It "may" bring in more new customers? Why? You can't just make such statements without supporting it with evidence. I countered that Avadon is evidence that this is not necessarily the case, considering how well it did. So, what claim are YOU trying to make here?

Really? Do you have any proof for that assertion? I found out that the "guy who wrote Exile" still exists and is writing games because I read about the upcoming release of "Avernum: Escape from the Pit" on a gaming site. So, at least *one* new customer was brought in by a remake.

 

 

I really doubt that the market for Avernum and Geneforge were saturated by their original releases. The remakes allow SW to target a larger potential audience with a story that was a proven success.

The assertion was made by the original poster, not me.

The remakes allow SW to target the same audience that any other game of theirs have.

A remake requires fewer developer and designer resources, so it is possible to introduce these at a faster rate than a brand new game.

 

A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game.

First statement: Requiring fewer resources does nothing to bring in new customers. The link between pumping out games faster and more new customers in a niche genre is tenuous at best.

Second statement. "Well liked," you mean, by the people that already bought it? They would have already recommended it to their friends. Avadon brought WAY more attention than Avernum/Geneforge did, and it was brand new.

1. Healthcare is a service, not a right. Either buy it or don't. It's very wrong to force someone else to pay for your own medical wants if you would prefer other investments. There are numerous programs, both state and private, that prevents the poor from being priced out and provides discounted medicines for those that cannot afford regular treatment for illnesses. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions in R&D and that needs to be made up. Telling them that they must give it up for nothing will only hurt us all as they cease researching advances at the same rate. The last thing we need is to give the state even greater power of the people and more financial commitments.

 

Health is all that we, as living beings have. Without it, nothing else matters. When we form a society, we don't just do what we each personally would prefer to invest in. We also help each other as a society. In reality, if money were a determining factor, you'd have people being denied care because it wasn't profitable enough and a group of haves and have nots. This is not a society that I would want to be a part of. Many people who think they are rugged individuals quickly change their tune when they actually experience what poor health of either oneself or a loved one would have to deal with in such a system.

 

2. Education is also a service. Invest into it or don't. I paid for my own education without going into debt and whilst making approximately $11,000 a year. I don't want to hear people make excuses about how it isn't affordable to the poor. You just need to learn fiscal discipline and patience. I should not be forced to pay for the education of another who isn't taking it seriously.

You paid for your own K-12 education? How exactly? As for college, what years did you go to school? Did you go to grad school?

4. Two consenting adults are the only authority on when they can reproduce. It is not an issue for anyone else to have a say in. If they reproduce recklessly and then apply for or continue to use services than they must be prepared to live with the consequences if they are cut-off.

The earth can only support so many human beings. Again, this is part of forming a society. Eventually, this might become determined as a group for the greater good. The only ones who will pay for it are the kids who did not choose to be born. Your solution is to have the kids suffer? Of course not. Society will pay for it just like they do now. We do not live in an ideal world where only the reckless parents would suffer.

 

6. If a person is of sound mental health, of a sufficient age, and their spouse agrees then I believe it should be permissible. Though I believe it should be heavily deterred for the sake of changing their mind.

Spouse agrees? What!?

 

8. The only situation when abortion should be legal is in the event of rape or the health of the mother is at risk. Otherwise take responsibility for creating life.

They are taking responsibility... by having an abortion if it isn't what would be best for them. Not all "life" is equal. For someone who claims to want all decisions decided on an individual basis(education, health), it is funny that you think that the individual shouldn't be able to take responsibility for their actions because YOU personally don't agree with how they do it. You literally want to interfere with what happens inside their body. Don't worry though... paying a few bucks to educate everyone and give healthcare to everyone is just TOO far! Telling someone what they can do with their actual body.. just right!

 

Excluding rape and father-abandonment, then at bare minimum both the mother and father must both agree to an abortion. I won't hear about the sexist policy of excluding the father from deciding whether or not his own child is killed or not. The child came from my eggs and his sperm. My body is only its protective house until it can survive outside of it. Both the mother and father should be equal in the decision.

Both don't bear the same consequences, such as the damage done to the body during pregnancy, so they do not have equal say. If both had equal amounts of hardship, then it would make sense to have equal say. Reality is that it affects the woman 10x more than a man.

 

9. A tricky question, but in my opinion Human life begins when the first brainwave forms inside the womb. I could be convinced that it begins at conception, but It would need to be a compelling argument.

Not all life is equal.

We can pretty objectively say that the story elements are nearly identical, and also that the game mechanics are completely different. We can also pretty objectively say that story elements and game mechanics are both major parts of RPGs. I can totally understand your opinion, but there's a difference between saying "I have no interest in a game with a recycled story, like this one" and "I have no interest in v2.0 of an existing game, like this one." One of those statements is clearly accurate and one of those statements is at odds with how everyone else uses those English words. *shrug*

How are they "completely different"? I do not agree that it can "objectively" be said that they are "completely" different. You are confusing your opinion with objective observation.

Also, the remakes are not necessarily about satisfying the people who have played every game that Jeff has ever written, but about getting new customers with a game that while it still has old school graphics and an old school feel is easily played (no emulation modes, etc) and user friendly.

How does a remake accomplish finding new customers any more than a brand new game?

And regardless of whether he is doing right thing by making remakes of remakes, there is a market for perpetual remakes.

As long as he isn't doing anything illegal he can do whatever a market Will pay for.

Has anyone ever argued this? I guess I just don't know who you could possibly be responding to.

The internet is a luxury, a nice thing to have. While it may make some things easier, it by no means is necessary for day to day living. Civilisation survived for a very long time without it. Food, water and shelter are absolute necessites, and then you have basic personal rights like culture, faith, orientation etc. While the internet may or may not make these things easier in some fashion, it is not needed.

I'd argue that in comparison to grades 1-12, the internet has more of an effect on education, communication, and freedom than the traditional "education" system.

Surprised by how many people support Euthanasia in any case, as opposed to just terminal illness.

 

That's basically advocating that doctors aid otherwise healthy depressed people in killing themselves, which is pretty extreme.

 

Plus, there's a difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. I'm morally uncomfortable with euthanasia (which usually implies that the doctor administers the killing agent himself, as opposed to assisted suicide where he just provides the means and the instruction and it's up to the patient to do it themselves), but don't have as much problem with assisted suicide in cases where the patient is terminally ill.

I don't personally see the difference between the 2. This difference would only matter to the doctor involved. No doctor would be forced to do something they don't want anyways, so it is self correcting.

It doesn't matter why someone would choose to end their life, depressed or otherwise. It should be their choice, and is no different to any other personal choice they make. Euthanasia would just make it easier on all involved.

Okay, at risk of being flamed...

 

[soapbox]

 

No offense, but re abortion I'm more than a bit sickened by the idea of male-bodied people having any say in it at all. Our bodies cannot host a fetus, and we don't get to dictate anything to those whose bodies can.

 

[/soapbox]

I interpreted the question as just what people's opinions are. This is not the same as having someone enforce the opinion.

Wow. This was unexpected.

 

I kind of wish I could explain my responses, but I feel like that would start a flamefest and get the thread locked... So I'll hold off for now.

I wonder in which way you found it unexpected. It went pretty much exactly as I thought.

You wanted to support GOG, well that's great. But a good rule of thumb would be to check out demos for games, even if you've got extra dollars lying around, why would you regret buying it then? At least, you've supported Jeff's family and GOG itself.

 

I'm not trying to start a trash talk here (although I admit that I sound I do), but your approach could have been less hostile. If I was a game dev and a lot of people liked auto-heal, and a minority did not, why should I risk my money in removing the auto-heal if a lot of players liked the feature. And as Darth Ernie meant, you could simply uninstall the game and play Dark Souls if you hate auto-heals and want a hardcore combat like it.

 

Personally, I lost interest in isometric top-down RPGs, mainly because I didn't like how my characters have to rely on percentage to dodge or parry attacks, I prefer to use my reflexes in dealing with block and dodges. Standing and waiting in combat turns doesn't sound realistic and isn't immersive either, unlike Skyrim, Dark Souls or Witcher or many other real-time rpgs that do. I don't like how you cannot sneak into those games, making stealth-based characters seem like warriors with debuffs. While in... etc etc

 

What I mean is, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Is the game moddable? Cool, check the scripts and turn off a the healing string or whatever there. Can't mod the game? Deal with it, play another game, that suits your taste. No demos? There are a billion let's play videos out there. Simple as that.

Personally, I don't consider games like Skyrim to be rpgs. I consider them to be FPS games with some stats and quests tacked on. Single player FPS games bore me personally(I play multipler, team based fps games regularly-700+ hours in BF4), so I stick to turn based or if I have to, rtwp for my rpgs.

As to the other poster, a demo isn't necessary. Just skim a review. As I posted in the OP, I knew about the auto healing ahead of time, and was interested in how it would be balanced. I didn't mind it, even though I expected I would.

I'm decently into Avadon 2 right now(level 22 or so) and I find it to be a better game, without as much of the constantly jumping back through hubs. I did encounter one supremely annoying boss though. Everything about 2 is better, outside of the questionably balanced tinkermage class, imo. I can't quite put my finger on why though. Maybe because there is more to do per area and more variety in the location types.

What pet does the tinkermage get? I do not see any.

Aww, that is disappointing! How could I not pick tinkermage as my main!? It is what is new!

I am about level 13/14 right now, playing on hard, with a party made up of my main tinkermage, blademaster, and sorc. I find that the freeze turret is insanely powerful. Without it, I don't know how my party would have survived this far. Is the Tinkermage overpowered compared to everyone else? Does this balance out eventually? The difficulty spiked after the first area. The corruption is much harder. It made me think that I might have missed an area. I have to put down a turret nearly every battle, and since it consumes so much mana, go back to avadon after every 4-6 battles.

Is this what everyone else experienced? 2 tinkermages in the same party would be unstoppable at this point in the game...

because exile doesnt have silly isometric crap, it has better spells, 6-player party, and really is infinitely better in all ways.

 

new is not always better y'all

According to people here, it also doesn't work on modern machines, and the already done remake does. Are the new remakes going back to the old spells or party configuration? If not, then I don't see the argument here.

He can add some more spells and 2 more party members, but for me personally, I've been there and done that already. Minor modification isn't enough for me to play through it again.

Yes, presumably people who like Avadon are going to go try A:EftP. But are they going to try Exile 1, v1.0? (Will Exile 1, v1.0, even work on their computers?) I'd be inclined to think most will not. So without the remakes, there would be Spiderweb games that a lot of people wouldn't try.

Why would they try to play Exile when Avernum is the more modern remake that works fine on current systems?

Some people mentioned things that were improved in Avadon 2. Is there a comprehensive list anywhere by any chance?

I just completed the game last night and thought I'd share some feedback. I'm pretty sure I've played(and beaten) every Avernum and Geneforge game, as well as Nethergate. There might have been one in there that I missed, but I'm pretty sure I played them all. My main was a Blade, with decent endurance, and the rest into strength. My two other characters were the Shadowwalker(speced straight strength) and the shaman(first speced for summons and heals, then attack spells and heals). I finished the game around level 28.

1. I started the game on normal difficulty level but it was preposterously easy. I switched to hard and this most resembled the other spiderweb games in terms of difficulty.

2. The auto heal after battle was fine. Vitality, on the other hand, seemed to serve little purpose. If you didn't want to use potions, then you'd just have to waste some time going to Avadon and back.

3. Skill trees were interesting in concept, and in some ways I liked the ability to respec. Many of the skills felt lacking though. Shaman had the worst of it. Earthquake does pitiful damage, and is one of the final 2 skills. The cone version of the wind skill(right before earthquake on the left side), does pitiful damage. Summons do pitiful damage even with +10 to their level from the skill. They do 15-20 per hit, and 45 damage or so in their once every 4 round cone attack. The salamander/drake endgame summon is not much better.

4. Very few skills and long cooldown timers lead to repetitive combat and little for casters to do. As shaman, I had 2 heals, 2 good combat skills(spirit and acid) and 2 poor skills(the wind one which did little damage with the aoe cone and earthquake).

5. Instead of going out the west entrance of a map and finding a new area, as in Geneforge, all areas funnel into new areas that are only discovered in dialog/quests. This feels incredibly limiting and makes the game world seem tiny.

6. The game feels like 3 quest hubs. Retread to old area, talk to handful of quest givers, discover 1-2 new areas and then repeat. The quest givers might as well have huge yellow exclamation point above their heads. Gone is the big world. We are now repeating the same areas, going to the same quest givers. I did not like this one bit.

7. Bosses near the end relied too much on confuse/terrify/daze and battle gimmicks. Even with a shadowwalker with high mental resistances and a blademaster with the mental spell buff(which only lasts 3 rounds), my characters were often taken out of my hands. Taking characters out of the player's hands is never fun. It just isn't fun and is poor/sloppy game design in my opinion. Many of the endgame bosses also resisted the shaman's base spell attack, which made the character near worthless for most turns. Since every spell has huge cooldowns, the caster just sat around most battles.

8. For some reason I found a few of the quests to be intentionally vague(moreso than the avernum/geneforge games).

I enjoyed the game for the most part, until the end. That being said, I just felt that it wasn't polished, and the game kind of just ended suddenly. The lack of real exploration, the poorly conceived skill trees, vitality system, long spell cooldowns, and linear quest hub based gameplay was just a step back from previous games.

What do you all think?

If it weren't for the remakes, I probably never would have gotten into the Avernum series. I have no shame in the 120 hours I've put into A:EftP, and I'm extremely glad that the sequel is being remade. I just have to be careful with avoiding spoilers here!

I'd think that if you played avadon and liked it, then you'd be checking Spiderweb's other games anyhow... so I guess I don't understand where you are coming from. I missed this thread for a month... I'll check out the rest later.